Horse is out of the barn & Grassley writes letter to Holder

[Faust100F]

It seldom gets better than this!  Grassley is the co-author of a letter to Holder requesting why the DOJ failed to prosecute the vampire squids on Wall street.  This is almost as good as the USDA monthly Comic book.

The horse is out of the barn and Grassley now tries to be the . . . righteous dude.  He has supported banking interests for years and now he wants action taken against the Lloyds, Jamies and Corzines of Wall Street.  

I think if one checks, the statute of limitations (3 years) may have conveniently ran out on these jokers, so they can no longer be prosecuted and are fair game for those who protected them. 

The ones that should be in the Dock are Grassley and his buddies in the Senate for allowing Paulson to push them over the Buffalo Jump four or five years ago.  Enjoy.  

John

January 29, 2013

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.    

United States Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

The large number of private and government lawsuits since the global financial crisis continues to undermine public confidence in our financial markets.  This confidence can only be restored by demonstrating that there are consistent rules in place that provide accountability for wrongdoing and deter financial predators.

Unfortunately, many of the settlements between large financial institutions and the federal government involve penalties that are disproportionately low, both in relation to the profits which resulted from those wrongful actions as well as in relation to the costs imposed upon consumers, investors, and the market. 

The nature of these settlements has fostered concerns that “too big to fail” Wall Street banks enjoy a favored status, in statute and in enforcement policy.  This perception undermines the public’s confidence in our institutions and in the principal that the law is applied equally in all cases. 

On settling with Swiss Bank UBS for Libor manipulation, for example, you said, “[t]he impact on the stability of the financial markets around the world is something we take into consideration.  We reach out to experts outside of the Justice Department to talk about what are the consequences of actions that we might take, what would be the impact of those actions if we want to make particular prosecutive decisions or determinations with regard to a particular institution.”

In an interview with Frontline, outgoing Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer defended the Department of Justice’s inability to prosecute large financial institutions by saying, “but in any given case, I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution, and as a result of bringing that case, there’s some huge economic effect — if it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly, counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly — it’s a factor we need to know and understand.”

These statements raise important questions about the Justice Department’s prosecutorial philosophy.  In order to explore the Justice Department’s treatment of potential criminal activity by large financial institutions, please answer the following questions and provide the following information:

             1. Has the Justice Department designated certain institutions whose failure could jeopardize the stability of the financial markets and are thus, “too big to jail”?  If so, please name them.

             2. Has the Justice Department ever failed to bring a prosecution against an institution due to concern that their failure could jeopardize financial markets?

             3. Are there any entities the Justice Department has entered into settlements with, in which the amount of the settlement reflected a concern that markets could be impacted by such a settlement?  If so, for which entities?

             4. Please provide the names of all outside experts consulted by the Justice Department in making prosecutorial decisions regarding financial institutions with over $1 billion in assets.

             5. Please provide any compensation contracts for these individuals.

             6. How did DOJ ensure that these experts provided unconflicted and unbiased advice to DOJ?

Our markets will only function efficiently if participants believe that all laws will be enforced consistently, and that violators will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  There should not be one set of rules that apply to Wall Street and another set for the rest of us. 

Thank you for your cooperation and attention in this matter.  We would appreciate a response by February 8, 2013.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Graham Steele for Senator Brown at (202) 224-2315 or Chris Lucas for Ranking Member Grassley at (202) 224-5225.

                                                                        Sincerely,

            Sherrod Brown                                                  Charles E. Grassley

            Chairman                                                        Ranking Member

            Banking Committee,                                          Judiciary Committee

[bruce MN]

Saw this here early this AM and was quite sure that you would recieve no responses.

The most idealogically ardent posters here have been and remain  big time beneifiaries fo what it is that the good Senators are filing their complaint over.

Facts be known, there were all sorts of members of Congress who would have certainly done this long ago, and I'd be quite sure also that many did in some form or other.  But not such as this would be, with attnededn fanfare and publicity.  Mostly seen as contratians and whinners, with the majority of their contemproaies in the pockets of the banks.  Along, of cousre, with the cabinets and staffs of 2 Presidents, the current and the former.

Alan Grayson comes to mind.  He's lucky to be alive, much less defeated in 2010. 

All part of that "keeping the ball in the air" thing that we talked about the other day.

Would be interested in knowing what it was that spurred Sen. Grassely to sign on to this.  Maybe he wound up with a seat on teh floor close to new Sen. Warren of MA and she got to him.  Ha!

 Brown would be one of those who has been talking about it for a long, long time.  Wondering what Sen. Coburn (R) of Oklahoma has to say.  He's been another.

And, of course, any real action on the matter on a Congressional basis could never have gotten out of a House Committee.  Probably never considered for the table, much less heard.

[cowfarmer]

I truly can't stand Chuck Grassley, poster boy of hypocrisy. I might disagree with the Clinton's of the world but I don't think I dislike them, I can say with certainty I dislike Grassley.

[r3020]

---

@bruce MN wrote:

Saw this here early this AM and was quite sure that you would recieve no responses.

The most idealogically ardent posters here have been and remain  big time beneifiaries fo what it is that the good Senators are filing their complaint over.

Facts be known, there were all sorts of members of Congress who would have certainly done this long ago, and I'd be quite sure also that many did in some form or other.  But not such as this would be, with attnededn fanfare and publicity.  Mostly seen as contratians and whinners, with the majority of their contemproaies in the pockets of the banks.  Along, of cousre, with the cabinets and staffs of 2 Presidents, the current and the former.

Alan Grayson comes to mind.  He's lucky to be alive, much less defeated in 2010. 

All part of that "keeping the ball in the air" thing that we talked about the other day.

Would be interested in knowing what it was that spurred Sen. Grassely to sign on to this.  Maybe he wound up with a seat on teh floor close to new Sen. Warren of MA and she got to him.  Ha!

 Brown would be one of those who has been talking about it for a long, long time.  Wondering what Sen. Coburn (R) of Oklahoma has to say.  He's been another.

And, of course, any real action on the matter on a Congressional basis could never have gotten out of a House Committee.  Probably never considered for the table, much less heard.

---

Why couldn't ol Chuck write something like this before he voted for TARP. He gave them a get out of jail free card. He knows what it takes to get re-elected. Now after the fact he wants to look tough and like he is concerned. What a loser. He is as evil as Mitch McConnell.

[bruce MN]

http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/30/lanny-breuer-now-blames-94-us-attorneys-for-immunizing-bankster...

[Nebrfarmr]

I was going to say, that nothing will be done, as long as those that make the rules and those that have to follow the rules, have their hands on each other's wallets, that they can fill with someone else's money.

[Faust100F]

I think the reason that Chuck signed the letter is because he had no one running against him, so he slid into another six years of feeding at the Washngton trough.  

Running unopposed gives you some idea of why Iowans are viewed as depicted in the "American Gothic" painting.  He is where he is because of his seniority in the Senate, it is not because he is the sharpest knife in the drawer, same goes for Harkin, who is not going to run again.  

I mean both of these jokers became multimillionaires earning a $100K a year salary, and residing in Wasington during the time they earned it.  They are a prime example of why term limits should be imposed.  Adios Amigo. John